I thought we were discussing how a person can be seduced into religion. We agreed that being born into a culture and specific religion is how it starts. I don’t see any relevance on how a zany idea is credible because the founder of the zany idea is a real or imagined person. Explain that. A crazy idea is a crazy idea and post-enlightenment, the crazy ideas should be extremely crazy. I’ll believe a supernatural claim because I can touch the person who uttered it?? How is an idea more seduction if it comes out of the mouth of a living person standing in front of you. I admit, I can somewhat understand followers of Deepak Chopra and Oprah being seduced because they mix their mysticism with psuedo-science.

I don’t see any relevance on how a zany idea is credible because the founder of the zany idea is a real or imagined person. Explain that.

Settle down. toombaru only made a point about Smith being a real person compared to Jesus whose existence is very questionable and in whose existence the Christian religion is dependent upon for validity.

Neither Smith nor Mohammed made claims of divinity but were only messengers so their religions require only faith from the believers. Christianity requires Jesus to have actually existed and been crucified and resurrected for that religion to have credibility among its believers. I can’t speak for toombaru, but that’s what I understand his point to be.

Your point about existence not equaling truth is valid but is misplaced. That’s all.

I don’t see any relevance on how a zany idea is credible because the founder of the zany idea is a real or imagined person. Explain that.

Settle down. toombaru only made a point about Smith being a real person compared to Jesus whose existence is very questionable and in whose existence the Christian religion is dependent upon for validity.

Neither Smith nor Mohammed made claims of divinity but were only messengers so their religions require only faith from the believers. Christianity requires Jesus to have actually existed and been crucified and resurrected for that religion to have credibility among its believers. I can’t speak for toombaru, but that’s what I understand his point to be.

Your point about existence not equaling truth is valid but is misplaced. That’s all.

We’ll leave it here- Do you see the difference between a Neanderthal Man believing the sun to be a god and an average educated man in the 1840’s believing Joseph Smith is a prophet? (Hint: In the mid-1800’s we already had the inductive scientific method, we had astronomical photography, we had the Bunsen cell, etc.) If not then we have, in fact, reached in impasse.

The error you are making is in comparing the reasonableness of the people who lived at different times and imputing that reasonableness to the age of the religion. Therefore, you compare the rationality of the 100 AD Christian to the 1840 AD Mormon. You then assign the rationality of those conversions to the modern day believer of the respective faiths.

If people conducted thorough historical analyses subjected to rational scrutiny in their process of adopting their faith, then you would have a point. Sadly, they don’t. Instead, they all make the exact same faith based error. They accept, without criticism, the dogma placed before them by X where X is usually their parents.

We’ll leave it here- Do you see the difference between a Neanderthal Man believing the sun to be a god and an average educated man in the 1840’s believing Joseph Smith is a prophet? (Hint: In the mid-1800’s we already had the inductive scientific method, we had astronomical photography, we had the Bunsen cell, etc.) If not then we have, in fact, reached in impasse.

The error you are making is in comparing the reasonableness of the people who lived at different times and imputing that reasonableness to the age of the religion. Therefore, you compare the rationality of the 100 AD Christian to the 1840 AD Mormon. You then assign the rationality of those conversions to the modern day believer of the respective faiths.

If people conducted thorough historical analyses subjected to rational scrutiny in their process of adopting their faith, then you would have a point. Sadly, they don’t. Instead, they all make the exact same faith based error. They accept, without criticism, the dogma placed before them by X where X is usually their parents.

There is a biological-survival reason that children believe what their their parents have to say about snakes and bears.
Unfortunately that quality bleeds over into all beliefs metaphysical.

All good points. I guess we basically have the same ‘cave man’ brains no matter what era we are living in. I just can’t personally relate. I rejected large chunks of my parents religion and culture pretty early on. I even sought out snakes to study them and keep them as pets.

All good points. I guess we basically have the same ‘cave man’ brains no matter what era we are living in. I just can’t personally relate. I rejected large chunks of my parents religion and culture pretty early on. I even sought out snakes to study them and keep them as pets.

The sense of self evolved relatively recently.
It has helped homo sapiens to become the temporary king of the mountain.
It seems that a few of them are not closed loops.
What happens to them is not easily articulated simply because the self’s entire reality consists of a conceptual pseudo-reality.

One could just say that Sam Harris and others criticize Mormonism more vocally because it’s not as accepted in society. Other than that, there’s the whole “Blacks are the cursed bloodline of Cain” racist ideology that Mormonism espouses. Frankly, I’d be terrified for the Black community if Mormonism and Mormon fundamentalism gained more credibility in the U.S..

Oh, and look-up Mormon fundamentalism if you think that is no longer an issue. It still persists today with blood atonement and open racism. They hate interracial couples and would like to separate blacks from the community.

“One could just say that Sam Harris and others criticize Mormonism more vocally because it’s not as accepted in society”

>> I don’t think that’s Sam’s reasoning at all. Why is Mormonism less accepted? Because it demands more extreme faith to believe crazy things in a modern era as opposed to believing less crazy concepts in an ancient era. I don’t know but is Mormonism on the rise or is it still a fringe offshoot of Christianity? I wouldn’t be surprised anyway and our real focus should be on Islam and, as Sam stresses, faith itself.

One could just say that Sam Harris and others criticize Mormonism more vocally because it’s not as accepted in society. Other than that, there’s the whole “Blacks are the cursed bloodline of Cain” racist ideology that Mormonism espouses. Frankly, I’d be terrified for the Black community if Mormonism and Mormon fundamentalism gained more credibility in the U.S..

Oh, and look-up Mormon fundamentalism if you think that is no longer an issue. It still persists today with blood atonement and open racism. They hate interracial couples and would like to separate blacks from the community.

You can no more attack the Mormons for the polygamous sects that have sprung off of them than you can attack the whole of the Baptists for the snake handlers. I mean, you can, but you only expose your ignorance by doing so.

As far as the racism business is concerned, I’m growing weary of the attack. It isn’t accurate. Don’t get me wrong, they are bigots, just not on racial grounds. They mostly hate female equality and homosexuals. The most common referrence to their racism is that black people could not hold the mystic powers until 1978. But it isn’t as though throngs of demonstrators were massed outside of Temple Square in SLC demanding access to this ‘privilege’. They are wonderbread and mayonnaise sytle white, but they aren’t racist. See Larry Wilmore’s recent HBO special - he gets the situation exactly right.

To defend Mormonism on any level is irrelevant. Some religions actually get things right but by accident, not by reason or acknowledging reality. The reason we’re mostly here is because Sam wrote a book called END OF FAITH. You should read it. It’s faith, the basis of all religion and mystical thinking, that is the culprit. Mormonism is just one example of man’s history of madness with regard to cults and religions. None are worthy of actual respect.

To defend Mormonism on any level is irrelevant. Some religions actually get things right but by accident, not by reason or acknowledging reality. The reason we’re mostly here is because Sam wrote a book called END OF FAITH. You should read it. It’s faith, the basis of all religion and mystical thinking, that is the culprit. Mormon is just one example of man’s history of madness with regard to cults and religions. None are worthy of actual respect.

No religion gets anything right.
They all emerge from an erroneous assumption.

No religion gets anything right.
They all emerge from an erroneous assumption.

What erroneous assumption is it that they all emerge from?

I am not sure if you consider religion as different from myth you see. By that I mean understanding religion/myth for what it is, the abstract metaphorical interpretation of reality by using the limited descriptive tool of language.

Not including the more recent created mythologies or current versions of older myths, as their function and relevance to present societies is something that is difficult to see to put it gently. I can not help acknowledging that in spite of human history being one where myth have been a central element in society. A foundation claimed to have no purpose, no value or any function at all. Yet, surprisingly here we are. To think that the endless flow of previous “idiotic” and “insane” generations managed against all odds to survive is hard to understand.

By making statements and claims of religion from the perspective of the religious believer I can understand the view of religion as fundamentally wrong. But taking linguistics, psychology, biology and history into consideration, the understanding of religion in a broader sense becomes somewhat more complex than truths that can be stated by using a few simple sentences. The personification and attribution of human attributes in description of reality we experience is a common and shared practice. The need and use of myth to structure group identity is not something exclusively belonging to religion, it is foundation of most if not all groups.

I am not saying that I personally do not find Mormonism strange, to the point of comical. I am only saying it originated, have existed, and continue to exist, because it contains elements functional and useful to the society and people connected to the specific religion mentioned. If you wonder where I am going with this, relax. I have the bad habit of ranting a bit before I collect my thoughts into something possible to comprehend. Don`t know why, but see no reason to deny.

So, based on observing and relating to the reality that exists instead of simply interpreting reality from the subjective perception of desired and imagined reality one would like to exist, issues mentioned or relevant regarding Mormons in Politics changes a bit.

- Polygamy. Why is it right? Why is it wrong? Do we take the evolutionary biological approach, or do we use the traditional religious social practice the social structure is founded on?

- Racism. Is racism the product of the Mormon religion? Or is it simply the adaptation and reflection of the society as a whole? How could Mormonism separate or segregate a society already greatly separated?

- Reality. Is the Mormon community a failure in society? Crime? Poverty? Are they the prime example of the devastating effects their beliefs bring upon their community? Do they sit silently and pray for their car to start, or do they turn the key to start the engine as most others do?

I find it strange to view the abstract interpretation language limits us to describe the subjective experience we call reality as something of higher value or more real than the actual actions and/or behavior people display. To elaborate, what is claimed or believed to be true or not is of less importance than what people do or not. I am not defending Mormonism, as I find it hilarious. I am just uncertain of what problems Mormonism represents? I am not to familiar with it, and have limited understanding of any influence in society. I imagine there must be more to it than just irritation or being annoyed of someone wearing magic underwear and having strange ideas. To compare with example where it is claimed that religion never gets anything right and so on, I just smile and try to understand it as the expression of emotion towards something it is. The claim does not influence the historical fact of math being a religious element known from ancient Egypt and Babylon, eventually playing the essential role in what we know today as science.

Perhaps some could describe or give examples of curiosities or negative influences Mormonism presents other than silly ideas and childish stories? Creationism and how it imposes on education is a familiar subject I absolutely understand a need for people to raise their voices, and take action against. But does Mormonism have anything about it that compares in similar negative social impact? I have few answers, but many questions. When there is something I struggle to understand I assume there is something that eludes me. I would therefore be very grateful if anyone with personal or good insight into Mormonism could elaborate.

He told me that there was a council room up there which was an exact replica of the Oval Office of the White House. He told me they even had all the radio and telemetry equipment in place, hidden beneath a dome on top of the temple. He said that from this council room, the prophet could run the nation just as easily as he could from the White House itself. He also claimed that these electronic devices on the roof were so strong that airlines had to avoid flying right over the temple or their instruments might be thrown off.

What do they intend to do with an exact replica of the oval office in a mormon temple? I have heard the Romney is a bishop in the church. As a person of reason I would prefer anyone holding the office of the POTUS and the Commander-In-Chief of the US Armed forces to be a person of proven sound moral judgment and not some delusional religious type. I don’t think Obama is a nut case. and he has already proved himelsf to be a man of high moral caliber and princible to me. If Romney actually believes any of this shit, WTF does that mean for us?

Madness. Simply madness.

The oval office thing is unlikely to be true. Though Mormons famously don’t let anyone in their temples, and I’ve only ever been in one room of one once as a small child [to perform baptisms for the dead as it happens], they are open to public tours after they are constructed but before they are consecrated. It seems unlikely that this fiscally prudent people would then remodel the interior in cognito. The airplane business is patently untrue and easily falsifiable.

As for the rest of the beliefs you’ve laid out - well done. Few people have taken the time to list them so accurately. One small note, I believe that the Telestial Kingdom is actually above the Terrestial Kingdom, but I’ve never been able to keep them straight. Next, perhaps you can get me the recipe for cow shit sandwiches. Never mind, it probably wouldn’t be relevant to anything.

The baptism for the dead, or baptism by proxy as they prefer to call it, is one of my favorite examples of the irrational hatred of Mormons. Let me show you. I hereby baptize you forever, permanently and irrevocably in the Church of The Coolinator. This baptism is deemed by God to supersede and replace any and all previous spiritual rituals you have undergone or may hold sacred. There, did that hurt? It went a lot further than the Mormons go, and is exactly as consequential. I’ve done it to Gandhi and Martin Luther King, Jr. as well. I’ll do it to Jesus soon if I’m not stopped.

I won’t waste your time rattling off the insane beliefs held by Catholics and Evangelicals. Your irrational fear of Mormons is an exact analog of the irrational fear of JFK’s Catholicism over half a century ago. None of the things you’ve said indicts a Mormon for a single crime against reason which cannot be equally charged to any other believer - and that is the point which everyone in this thread is dancing around.

There are a thousand very good reasons not to vote for Mitt Romney for anything ever. His being Mormon simply isn’t one of them. Unless, of course, he were running against an atheist. But he isn’t.

There is no doubt that belief in a common god offers survival value to a tribe.
It gives the members a reason to die in protection of the group and its imagined creator.
A god fearing tribe would have a higher survival quotient than a band of atheists.
It is not religion’s evolutionary value I question.
I am saying that its entire premise is based on the assumption that the psychological entity (self) is not only an actual reality in the perceived would but continues to live after the physical organism dies.
The I am exists only as swirling mnemonic debris.
From that perspective, religion gets nothing right.

I think religion was based on a primal human instinct to explain reality before science. The belief in religion and the creation of a culture probably created the family unit and tribe, banding people of similar beliefs and tastes together. They would naturally oppose anyone or tribe that was different out of fear.